PUBLIC institutions exist to serve citizens, not merely to administer them. Their legitimacy depends not only on how they perform their duties but also on how openly they account for them. Yet in Bangladesh, a journalist approaching a government office or autonomous institution with a camera is often met with a familiar response from the very official appointed to communicate with the public: ‘Speaking on camera is not possible.’

The phrase has become so routine that it barely attracts attention anymore. Whether the issue concerns allegations of corruption, administrative irregularities, public expenditure or a matter of urgent public interest, many Public Relations Officers appear to retreat the moment questions are asked. Rather than acting as a bridge between institutions and citizens, they often become the first barrier to information. This raises a question that extends beyond the conduct of individual officers. Is this reluctance a personal choice, or is it the product of a bureaucratic culture that views silence as the safest response to scrutiny?

Recent events at Ad-Din Hospital demonstrated the consequences of such a culture. Following the deaths of six newborns amid allegations of institutional negligence, journalists arrived seeking explanations from the authorities. Instead of offering a press briefing, acknowledging public concern or outlining immediate steps being taken, hospital staff reportedly assaulted the reporters. Although this incident occurred outside the government bureaucracy, it reflected a wider institutional mindset in which public questioning is treated not as an opportunity for accountability but as a threat to be resisted. When organisations choose concealment over communication, they deepen public distrust long before any formal investigation reaches its conclusion.

Such responses also reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what public relations actually means. A PRO is not simply a spokesperson who appears when circumstances are favourable, nor someone whose responsibility is limited to distributing ceremonial press releases. According to the Public Relations Society of America, public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organisations and the people they serve. Communication, accessibility and public confidence therefore lie at the heart of the profession. Remaining unavailable during moments of controversy defeats the very purpose for which the position exists.

The responsibilities associated with modern public relations extend far beyond speaking to the media. Public relations professionals are expected to respond to media enquiries, prepare official statements, organise press briefings, manage communication during emergencies and ensure that accurate information reaches citizens promptly. Research by the Institute for Public Relations also describes them as strategic advisers who monitor public opinion, identify reputational risks and alert organisational leaders before small issues develop into major institutional crises. In effect, an effective PRO functions not merely as a communicator but also as an early-warning mechanism capable of protecting institutional credibility through timely engagement.

Viewed from this perspective, the widespread reluctance to address journalists publicly is not simply a matter of individual hesitation. It represents a departure from the fundamental principles of the profession itself. Institutions inevitably face criticism, controversy and occasional failure. The role of a PRO is not to pretend that such situations do not exist but to ensure that they are handled with openness, accuracy and consistency. Silence rarely reduces public concern; it merely encourages speculation.

Professional organisations consistently identify credibility as the defining quality of an effective public relations officer. The Chartered Institute of Public Relations emphasises that trust forms the foundation of successful communication, particularly during periods of controversy. This requires officials who are capable of speaking honestly even when the available information is incomplete or politically inconvenient. Credibility is built not by claiming that every institution is faultless but by demonstrating a willingness to acknowledge problems and explain how they are being addressed.

Communication skills are equally indispensable. These involve far more than drafting formal statements. A competent PRO must be able to explain complex administrative issues in language ordinary citizens understand, respond calmly under pressure and engage constructively with journalists instead of treating them as adversaries. Ethical judgement, strategic thinking and relationship management are equally important because public confidence depends as much on how institutions communicate as on the decisions they ultimately make.

The digital transformation of the information landscape has further expanded these responsibilities. Public opinion is now shaped through television, online news portals and social media simultaneously. Information, misinformation and speculation spread within minutes. In such an environment, delayed communication creates a vacuum that rumours readily fill. Modern public relations therefore requires digital literacy, an understanding of online narratives and the ability to provide timely, accurate updates across multiple platforms. Above all, it demands a crisis-ready mindset that prioritises transparency over temporary convenience. While silence may shield individual officials for a short period, it seldom protects the institutions they represent.

The importance of competent public communication becomes most visible during crises. Whether an institution faces allegations of corruption, administrative failure or a public health emergency, the first few hours often determine whether confidence is preserved or permanently damaged. Crisis communication research consistently shows that organisations should acknowledge an incident promptly, express concern for those affected and explain the immediate steps being taken. They should designate a single spokesperson to communicate consistently, while providing regular updates as new information emerges. The objective is not to eliminate criticism but to demonstrate that the institution remains accountable throughout the process.

Silence achieves precisely the opposite. When officials refuse to speak or delay responding until public pressure subsides, uncertainty quickly gives way to suspicion. Rumours fill the information vacuum, conflicting narratives circulate unchecked and the institution gradually loses control of the story. Public confidence is rarely destroyed by the initial crisis alone; more often, it is eroded by the perception that those responsible are unwilling to answer legitimate questions. In an era when information travels instantly across television channels, online news platforms and social media, institutional silence has become one of the least effective forms of crisis management.

Bangladesh’s Right to Information Act 2009 provides an appropriate legal framework for balancing transparency with legitimate confidentiality. The law recognises citizens’ right to obtain information while allowing certain categories, such as matters affecting national security, personal privacy or ongoing investigations, to remain protected. A competent Public Relations Officer should therefore understand not only what information may be withheld but also how that decision should be communicated. Instead of dismissing journalists with a vague refusal to comment, an officer should be able to explain that particular information cannot yet be disclosed under the relevant provisions of the law while clarifying what information can responsibly be shared. Transparency does not require revealing everything immediately; it requires explaining clearly why certain information cannot yet be released.

This distinction highlights a deeper structural problem. The issue may not simply be that some officers choose silence but that the system has never adequately prepared them to communicate under pressure. Recruitment for Public Relations Officers in many government and autonomous institutions continues to rely heavily on conventional examinations dominated by general knowledge, Bangla and English. While these subjects undoubtedly assess important academic abilities, they say remarkably little about a candidate’s capacity to manage a hostile press conference, communicate during an emergency, interpret the Right to Information Act or maintain public confidence during institutional crises.

Communication is a professional skill that requires specialised assessment and continuous training. Public Administration Reform Commission recommendations have repeatedly emphasised the need for recruitment systems that evaluate analytical ability, communication skills and practical problem-solving rather than relying overwhelmingly on rote memorisation. For public relations positions, this principle is even more relevant. Candidates should be assessed through simulated press briefings, crisis communication exercises, media interviews, legal knowledge relating to access to information and professional ethics. These are the competencies they will ultimately need in their daily responsibilities.

Otherwise, the contradiction remains difficult to ignore. A person may demonstrate impressive knowledge of historical events or grammatical rules yet remain entirely unprepared to address journalists after a major institutional failure. Memorising obscure facts cannot substitute for the judgement, composure and communication skills that public accountability demands. If recruitment never evaluates these abilities, institutions should not be surprised when their designated communicators respond to public scrutiny by avoiding cameras altogether.

The consequences extend well beyond individual interviews. After allegations of corruption or administrative failure emerge, institutions often lapse into prolonged silence. Press conferences are postponed, official statements never appear and citizens receive little indication of whether any investigation or corrective action is taking place. Yet information does not disappear simply because officials decline to discuss it. News reports remain publicly accessible, questions continue to circulate and public confidence steadily deteriorates. Even where genuine reforms are undertaken internally, institutions that fail to communicate those efforts continue to appear evasive and unaccountable.

Public relations is therefore not a cosmetic function concerned merely with protecting reputations. It is an essential component of democratic governance because it enables institutions to explain their decisions, acknowledge failures and maintain an informed relationship with the citizens they serve. A Public Relations Officer should not fear standing before a camera. Their responsibility is not to eliminate criticism but to ensure that public communication remains timely, lawful and credible.

Reform is therefore needed on several fronts. Recruitment should prioritise professional communication skills alongside academic knowledge. Training must equip officers to manage crises, understand media dynamics and apply the Right to Information Act confidently. Most importantly, institutions themselves must abandon the culture that equates silence with safety. Accountability cannot flourish where communication is treated as a risk rather than a responsibility. Until that culture changes, the familiar phrase, “Speaking on camera is not possible”, will continue to symbolise not merely the silence of individual officers but the silence of the institutions they represent.

Nafew Sajed Joy is a writer and researcher.